in Re MEHTA

Opinion

Opinion issued August 6, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

an original mandamus proceeding. See In re Texas Windstorm Ins. Ass’n, 417

S.W.3d 119, 130 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, orig. proceeding). As is the

case here, “[i]f the record contains legally sufficient evidence both against and in

support of the trial court’s decision then mandamus will not lie because weighing

conflicting evidence is a trial court function.” In re Pirelli Tire, L.L.C., 247 S.W.3d

670, 686 (Tex. 2007) (orig. proceeding); see MC Worldwide, L.P. v. Gray, 178

S.W.3d 29, 36 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (“Abuse of discretion

does not exist if the trial court heard conflicting evidence and evidence appears in

the record that reasonably supports the trial court’s decision.”). Accordingly, we

deny the petition.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Kelly, and Goodman.

Footnotes

1. NO. 01-19-00162-CV ——————————— IN RE MEHTA, Relator Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus MEMORANDUM OPINION Relators, Sunil Kumar Mehta and Mehta Investments, Ltd., have filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the trial court’s denial of their motion to disqualify counsel from representing real party in interest in the underlying suit. 1 The petition concerns contested issues of fact, which this Court does not resolve in 1 The underlying case is Mohammed Ahmed v. Sunil Kumar Mehta and Mehta Investments, Ltd., cause number 2017-84654, pending in the 295th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Donna Roth presiding.